OCR Text |
Show unnecessary to pasg upon tha other alleged al-leged errort. The cane is reversed and a venire de novo awarded. Zane U. J., Anderson J. and Miuor J. oonrur. J'o more decisions following, argu-menu argu-menu on the school tax cases were begun, be-gun, Parley L. Williams opening. SCALIW TICKETS. Xhe Supreme Court Delivers a Severe ' Blow to tie Broker Through Blackburn, J. EIGHTS OF THE RAILROADS. The Man who Purchasn a Contract Ticket Must Accept its Terms The School Oases. It was understood when the supreme court adjourned yesterday that tho school eases would have the right of way this morning, and the way was paved to move as expeditiously as pos-Bible. pos-Bible. Tables and benches quivered under a mass of precedents when Chief Justice Zane and his full panel of associates asso-ciates tiled into the court chamber. Judge Judd, who bad undertaken to warm his fingers at a tireless stove, was warming tip on the question of reform. The concensus of his argument was thut when a city was forced to appeal to immorality for prosperity it was high time for It to totter and fall. No one but Judge Powers would have been plucky enough to havo ventured in the ice-fringed surroundings with a button hole boquct, which has come to bo as essential to his toilette as any other feature. "I did this," remarked tho judge, "to give the visitors some evidence of the Tropical Resources of Ion jvcti in tho dead of winter." The stentorio voice of the bailiff stopped further gossip and the case of H. E. Drummond vs. The Southern Pacific Pa-cific railway was taken up, Justice Blackburn handing down the followiug decision: Plaintiff purchased of a ticket broker in Salt Lake city in May '81). two tickets tick-ets to San Diego, California, for himself him-self and wife over the defendant company's com-pany's road. They rodo on them to Promontory and the conductor refused to honor tho tickets and took them up and required the plaintiff to pay full fare for himself and wife, to their destination, or be put off tho train. Plaintiff paid the fare and this suit is brought to recover re-cover damages for this breach of duty as claimed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff recovered judgment below and the defendant de-fendant appeals, asserting that it was the duty of tho conductor to refuso to honor the tickets and take them up and compel the Flalotinr to I'ay Full Fare or leave the train. The tickets were contract tickets and amongst others contained this condition: "3d If not so used; if more than one late is canceled or if presented by any other person than the original holder, this ticket is void, and tho conductor will take up and collect full fare. This class of tickets is usu-( usu-( ally signed by the purchaser, but these were not. These tickets were I gold at Blue Rapids, Kan., by an agent A . of the Union Pacilio Railroad company, Si , and used to Salt Lake City and there sold to tho ticket broker. Before pur-I pur-I chasing the tickets plaintiff went to the office of the Union Pacilio company at 1 Suit Lake City with the ticket broker, and had the following conversation and transaction: Saw Mr. Ingalls, who was an employee em-ployee of tho said company, and told him tho plaintiff wished to putchase these two tickets. He looked at the tickets and saw where they were sold, aud said: "All right; you can sell them and we will get through all right; we Will Limit Tlieee Tlekete and have Mr. Drummond sign them end will give a letter to Mr. Drummond Drum-mond to the conductors on tho Central Pacific railroad authorizing thcra to honor these tickets. Mr. Ingalls gave the letter and Mr. Drummond signed the tickets and bought them. Tho letter was signed by Parker per Ingalls, and Parker swears positively that he had no authority to sell tickets over the road of defendant company. The letter let-ter spoken of was uot introduced as evidence and we cannot tell its oon-tents. oon-tents. The question is was it the duty of the defendant road to honor these tickets although presented by persons other than tho original purchasers. They were tlirougn tickets and were sold for a less price than the local faro and the purchasers agreed uot to sell them and the tickets stated on their face that they wore non-transferable. The purchaser when he bought these tickets knew that ne had no right to ride part of the way upon them aud sell them for the rest of the way, and the ilaiutiff knew by the terms of tho tickets tick-ets ho Had No night to Buy Them; but anxious to ride to bis destination for less than the regular fare he consid-the consid-the matter and bought on the opinion of a man wholly unauthorized to bind the defendant company, aud his suspicions suspic-ions should havo been aroused by the conduct of the pretended agent; because if the tickets were entitled to be honored hon-ored on t hoi r merits a letter to the conductor con-ductor was unnecessary; and if not the ollicious letter of the pretended agent, would be prevailing; and this ought to have suggested to him tho tickets would be dishonored, unless by the intluenoe of this letter the conductors would be induced to neglect their duty. This class of contract tickets is valid and common carriers are not authorized author-ized to enforce them. Post vs. K. W. .Co., 1 1 Nob.; Klmore vs. Sands hi N. Y.; Kaihvay Co. vs. Chapman 140 Mass.; Cody vs. Ky. Co. 4 Saw. But it is contended that the ticket agent nt Blue liapids, Kansas, sold without requiring the purchaser to sign the contract. We think this makes nu difference. He took them at a loss price than the regular fare; the Ti.rms of the Contract set out in full nnd by accepting the tickets without signing he accepted the terms of the contract and was bound by them. K. U. vs. Read 37 111.; H. R. Co. vs. McGowau 2 Am. & Eng. R. R ; Masier vs. St. Louis etc.. K. R. Co. 1J7 U. S. The court instructed the jury in np-gosition np-gosition to these views, and In that re-pard re-pard his instructions are erroneous. Ve also think there is no evidence in the record to support the verdict But it is claimed that the conductor took up the ticket, and therefore the plaintiff should recover. But he had a right to do that under the contract and the plaintiff was not damaged as he had the tickets at the trial and introduced intro-duced them in evidence. As this evidence evi-dence disposes of this case, we deera (t |